Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Finally! Consistency! I've missed you brother!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How about this for a proof text?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
Herald, it is relevant in that the OP assumes Calvinism is predicated on a fatalistic view of the decrees of God which some insist means Calvinists are determinists. I think you will find historically many good Calvinist
Baptists believed that God decreed whatsoever is to come to pass AND that man does what he does according to the pleasure of his will, not according to a fatalistic externally determined cause that renders his culpability void. Gill - The Cause of God and Truth
IV. It is argued, that "if the will of man is determined to one,
namely, to that which is good, by the grace of God; or to that
which is evil, through the disability contracted by the fall; this must
take away the freedom of men’s actions: since then, there is no
place for election and deliberation; it being certain, that the liberty
of man must be deliberative, if it doth choose, there being no
election without deliberation." To which I reply; Supposing choice
necessary to free actions, a determination of the will to some one
thing, is not contrary to choice, for the human will of Christ, and
the will of angels and glorified saints, are determined only to that
which is good; and yet they both choose and do that good freely.
And again, all that is done freely, is not done with deliberation and
consultation; a man that falls into water, and is in danger of being
drowned, spying something he can lay hold on to save himself,
does not stay to consult and deliberate what he had best to do; ut immediately, without any deliberation or consultation, lays
hold upon it; and yet this he does freely. Besides, neither the
disability of man, nor the efficacious influences of grace, at all
hinder the freedom of human actions. A wicked man, who is
under the strongest bias, power, and dominion of his lusts, acts
freely in his fulfilling of them; as does also a good man, in doing
what is spiritually good; and never more so, than when he is
under the most powerful influences of divine grace.
Spurgeon God's Will and Man's Will
Whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.” According to this and many other texts the Scripture where man is addressed as a being having a will, it appears clear enough that men are not saved by compulsion. When a man receives the grace of Christ, he does not receive it against his will. No man will be pardoned while he abhors the forgiveness. No man will have joy in the Lord if he says, “I do not wish to rejoice in the Lord.” Do not think that anybody will have the angels pushing them behind into the gates of heaven. They must go there freely or else they will never go there at all. We are not saved against our will; nor again, mark you, is the will taken away; for God does not come and convert the intelligent free-agent into a machine. When he turns the slave into a child, it is not by plucking out of him the will which he possesses. We are as free under grace as ever we were under sin; no, we were slaves when we were under sin, and when the Son makes us free we are free indeed, and we are never free before. Erskine, in speaking of his own conversion, says he ran to Christ “with full consent against his will,” by which he meant it was against his old will; against his will as it was till Christ came, but when Christ came, then he came to Christ with full consent, and was as willing to be saved-no, that is a cold word-as delighted, as pleased, as transported to receive Christ as if grace had not constrained him. But we do hold and teach that though the will of man is not ignored, and men are not saved against their wills, that the work of the Spirit, which is the effect of the will of God, is to change the human will, and so make men willing in the day of God's power, working in them to will to do his own good pleasure.
J.P. Boyce Abstract of Systematic Theology
The Scriptures recognize both the sovereignty of God, and the free agency, and accountability of man. Consciousness assures us of the latter. The nature of God, as has just been shown, proves the former. The Bible makes no attempt to reconcile the two. Paul even declines to discuss the subject, saying, "Nay but, oh man, who art thou that repliest against God?" Rom. 9:20. The two facts are plainly revealed. They cannot be contradictory, they must be reconcilable. That we cannot point out the harmony between them is a proof, only of our ignorance, and limited capacity, and not that both are not true. It is certain, however, that, whatever may be the influences which God exercises, or permits, to secure the fulfilment of his purposes, he always acts in accordance with the nature, and especially with the laws of mind he has bestowed upon man. It is equally true, that his action is in full accord with that justice, and benevolence, which are such essential attributes of God himself.
The only apparent advantage is that God is supposed thus not to interfere with their free agency, so as to destroy their accountability. But we have seen that, so far as the permissive decree is concerned, the knowledge of the event is as effective in making it certain, and in influencing the free agent, as would be any decree, purpose or plan of God. It is only when the decree is effective, and introduces the means for its accomplishment, that the free agency is affected. In this case, God does not destroy the free agency, although he exerts an influence towards the result. But that God is thus active, sometimes, as in his gracious influences upon men, is held as firmly by Arminians as Calvinists. In all such gracious acts, both parties claim that he is both merciful and just. Calvinists extend these no further than do Arminians, for they deny as strenuously as others, that God acts effectively to lead men to wicked decisions and deeds. So far as the nature of God's actions upon free agents is concerned, both parties agree. But the Arminian theory, in asserting foreknowledge without purpose, and in alleging that the foreknowledge is all that there is in God, is contrary to the relations of God's will to his knowledge, as well as to the statements of Scripture about the decrees of God; and while it leaves the event equally certain, supposes fully as much influence over the will of the creature, and has equal difficulty in reconciling the free agency, and consequent responsibility, with the inevitable certainty of the event.
New Hampshire Confession of Faith
We believe that Election is the eternal purpose of God, according to which he graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners; that being perfectly consistent with the free agency of man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end; that it is a most glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, being infinitely free, wise, holy, and unchangeable; that it utterly excludes boasting, and promotes humility, love, prayer, praise, trust in God, and active imitation of his free mercy; that it encourages the use of means in the highest degree; that it may be ascertained by its effects in all who truly believe the gospel; that it is the foundation of Christian assurance; and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves demands and deserves the utmost diligence.
Herald, it is relevant in that the OP assumes Calvinism is predicated on a fatalistic view of the decrees of God which some insist means Calvinists are determinists. I think you will find historically many good Calvinist
Gill - The Cause of God and Truth
IV. It is argued, that "if the will of man is determined to one,
namely, to that which is good, by the grace of God; or to that
which is evil, through the disability contracted by the fall; this must
take away the freedom of men’s actions: since then, there is no
place for election and deliberation; it being certain, that the liberty
of man must be deliberative, if it doth choose, there being no
election without deliberation." To which I reply; Supposing choice
necessary to free actions, a determination of the will to some one
thing, is not contrary to choice, for the human will of Christ, and
the will of angels and glorified saints, are determined only to that
which is good; and yet they both choose and do that good freely.
And again, all that is done freely, is not done with deliberation and
consultation; a man that falls into water, and is in danger of being
drowned, spying something he can lay hold on to save himself,
does not stay to consult and deliberate what he had best to do; ut immediately, without any deliberation or consultation, lays
hold upon it; and yet this he does freely. Besides, neither the
disability of man, nor the efficacious influences of grace, at all
hinder the freedom of human actions. A wicked man, who is
under the strongest bias, power, and dominion of his lusts, acts
freely in his fulfilling of them; as does also a good man, in doing
what is spiritually good; and never more so, than when he is
under the most powerful influences of divine grace.
Spurgeon God's Will and Man's Will
Whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.” According to this and many other texts the Scripture where man is addressed as a being having a will, it appears clear enough that men are not saved by compulsion. When a man receives the grace of Christ, he does not receive it against his will. No man will be pardoned while he abhors the forgiveness. No man will have joy in the Lord if he says, “I do not wish to rejoice in the Lord.” Do not think that anybody will have the angels pushing them behind into the gates of heaven. They must go there freely or else they will never go there at all. We are not saved against our will; nor again, mark you, is the will taken away; for God does not come and convert the intelligent free-agent into a machine. When he turns the slave into a child, it is not by plucking out of him the will which he possesses. We are as free under grace as ever we were under sin; no, we were slaves when we were under sin, and when the Son makes us free we are free indeed, and we are never free before. Erskine, in speaking of his own conversion, says he ran to Christ “with full consent against his will,” by which he meant it was against his old will; against his will as it was till Christ came, but when Christ came, then he came to Christ with full consent, and was as willing to be saved-no, that is a cold word-as delighted, as pleased, as transported to receive Christ as if grace had not constrained him. But we do hold and teach that though the will of man is not ignored, and men are not saved against their wills, that the work of the Spirit, which is the effect of the will of God, is to change the human will, and so make men willing in the day of God's power, working in them to will to do his own good pleasure.
J.P. Boyce Abstract of Systematic Theology
The Scriptures recognize both the sovereignty of God, and the free agency, and accountability of man. Consciousness assures us of the latter. The nature of God, as has just been shown, proves the former. The Bible makes no attempt to reconcile the two. Paul even declines to discuss the subject, saying, "Nay but, oh man, who art thou that repliest against God?" Rom. 9:20. The two facts are plainly revealed. They cannot be contradictory, they must be reconcilable. That we cannot point out the harmony between them is a proof, only of our ignorance, and limited capacity, and not that both are not true. It is certain, however, that, whatever may be the influences which God exercises, or permits, to secure the fulfilment of his purposes, he always acts in accordance with the nature, and especially with the laws of mind he has bestowed upon man. It is equally true, that his action is in full accord with that justice, and benevolence, which are such essential attributes of God himself.
The only apparent advantage is that God is supposed thus not to interfere with their free agency, so as to destroy their accountability. But we have seen that, so far as the permissive decree is concerned, the knowledge of the event is as effective in making it certain, and in influencing the free agent, as would be any decree, purpose or plan of God. It is only when the decree is effective, and introduces the means for its accomplishment, that the free agency is affected. In this case, God does not destroy the free agency, although he exerts an influence towards the result. But that God is thus active, sometimes, as in his gracious influences upon men, is held as firmly by Arminians as Calvinists. In all such gracious acts, both parties claim that he is both merciful and just. Calvinists extend these no further than do Arminians, for they deny as strenuously as others, that God acts effectively to lead men to wicked decisions and deeds. So far as the nature of God's actions upon free agents is concerned, both parties agree. But the Arminian theory, in asserting foreknowledge without purpose, and in alleging that the foreknowledge is all that there is in God, is contrary to the relations of God's will to his knowledge, as well as to the statements of Scripture about the decrees of God; and while it leaves the event equally certain, supposes fully as much influence over the will of the creature, and has equal difficulty in reconciling the free agency, and consequent responsibility, with the inevitable certainty of the event.
New Hampshire Confession of Faith
We believe that Election is the eternal purpose of God, according to which he graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners; that being perfectly consistent with the free agency of man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end; that it is a most glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, being infinitely free, wise, holy, and unchangeable; that it utterly excludes boasting, and promotes humility, love, prayer, praise, trust in God, and active imitation of his free mercy; that it encourages the use of means in the highest degree; that it may be ascertained by its effects in all who truly believe the gospel; that it is the foundation of Christian assurance; and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves demands and deserves the utmost diligence.
very nice quotes...:thumbsup::wavey::thumbsup:
Tom Butler
New Member
I was reading along in this thread, and the thought occurred to me, "Skandalon is having fun with us Calvinists. He's yanking out chains." Then Skan comes right along and admits that it is exactly what he's doing..
There are some serious points in some of the posts in this thread, but I have to congratulate Skandalon on how easily he lured us into biting on his OP.
There are some serious points in some of the posts in this thread, but I have to congratulate Skandalon on how easily he lured us into biting on his OP.
Nope. It implies that if Calvinism's premise is true then Calvinists shouldn't question as to why God made some to be Arminians and some to be Calvinists. If you deny contra-causal freedom and insist that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass so that it unchangeably will come to pass (as some do); then this is a valid implication.
Thanks. I thought it was cute too. :love2:
Aww, now your just being mean.
Well, God chose the weak to shame the wise, so maybe since I'm more intelluctually (sic) wanting than you, I'll be more likely to be chosen? Oh, wait that wouldn't be unconditional...Hmmm? :laugh:
Oh my gosh, the apples and oranges are closer in kind to your comparison!!
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Somewhat true, as there are some hard deterministic posters here (who, though I disagree with their views, I find them to be more consistent logically than the more moderate/mainstream version).
Most Calvinists are determinists...as even compatibilism claims that determinism and free will are "compatible" ...never mind that the compatibilist's definition of free will is completely insufficient...but that is for another debate.
Exactly...which would afford the question of the OP.I think you will find historically many good Calvinist
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Which comparison? His intelligence to mine, or "God's decree of whatsoever comes to pass" to "God's decree of whatsoever theological view his followers adopt?"
Do you not believe our theological views are contained in 'whatsoever comes to pass' or do you just not hold to that particular tenant of your camp's dogma?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Herald, I was blessed that you chose to grace me with your presence at all, brother. You are indeed invincible and well known while I remain stupid and unworthy of your efforts. :smilewinkgrin:
Your best post in this thread!:applause::laugh::laugh::thumbsup:
I would second that Scan’s reply was pretty good, especially being I’m not in the habit of disregarding the context, IOWs “not following the simple argument”, in which a rebuttal was given.
But I can certainly see how doing just that would serve certain others in their persistence of what they hope to get out of a debate. Through them ignoring the "true meaning" involving how Scan satirically, yet gently shamed the obvious intent of the words used to personally attack him so they could suit their purpose by “unethically” avoiding the context to attack him once more.
Personally, I would tend to have been likely to be more direct about what was implied so I appreciate Scan’s examples in how to better address such offensives.
:thumbs: For Scandelon indeed!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
That is a false view of Calvinism as I understand it {Using the pejorative Calvinism to define the Doctrines of Grace.}
And if the non-elect reprobate shouldn't question why God made him such (the faulty application of Rom 9 by Calvinism); then the Calvinist shouldn't question why God made me, an Arminian, such as I am either.
God did not make you an Arminian. Either your refusal to accept Scripture or your ego made you an Arminian. People, especially professing Christians, should not blame God for their failures, sins, and shortcomings!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
No, I'm saying that if God unchangeably decrees whatsoever comes to pass (a view held to by most Calvinists), that would undoubtably include our particular belief system. And if the non-elect reprobate shouldn't question why God made him such (the faulty application of Rom 9 by Calvinism); then the Calvinist shouldn't question why God made me, an Arminian, such as I am either.
I have responded somewhat to the above post earlier. The following was prepared in response to another Arminian post on another thread which showed a complete lack of understanding of the Doctrines of Grace. I believe Skandelon indicated that he was at one time one of these Calvinistic "robots" as we are pejoratively so he is obviously yanking legs.
****************************************************************
Pejoratives are quite common on this Forum. I have on occasion applied the term "Freewiller" to those who hold to the Arminian [or semi-Pelagian, or Pelagian] Doctrines of salvation; those who believe that man of his own "free will" can accept or reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Then there are the pejoratives applied to those who believe in the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace the belief that man is in bondage to sin and is unable of his own "free will" to respond ravingly to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Pejoratives commonly applied to these folks are: "robots", "mindless robots", the currently popular "determinists", and of course the name "Calvinist". And I forgot "dogs"! Yes some Christians are "dogs"!
Those who reject the Doctrines of Grace falsely indicate by their posts the following: We who adhere to the Doctrines of Grace believe that every event, every moment, that occurs in our life is determined by God.
As far as I am concerned that is false and perhaps the silliest pejorative of all. Of course I cannot speak for all who bad here to the Doctrines of Grace.
The 1644 [1646 revision] Baptist Confession of Faith states:
***************************************************************
I have emphasized certain parts of the above Confession: God had decreed in Himself, before the world was, concerning all things, whether necessary, accidental or voluntary, with all the circumstances of them, to work, dispose, and bring about all things according to the counsel of His own will, to His glory: God works all things whether necessary, accidental or voluntary <snip> to His glory:
Consider the following Scripture, a favorite of Christians in general:
Romans 8:28 NASB
28. And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Now is there anyone who believes that only good things occur in the lives of Christians? I think not! Yet God is able to cause all thing {"whether necessary, accidental or voluntary" or anything else, good, bad, or indifferent} to work for good to those who belong to him. That is not "stoic determinism" that is the Love of God.
*******************************************
Do the Children of God commit sin? Yes!
Does God cause those for whom Jesus Christ died to commit sin? No!
Does God forgive the sins of those who belong to Him? Yes!
That is not "stoic determinism" that is the Love of God.
*********************************************************
I challenge any Child of God on this Forum, on this Baptist Board, to say they have lived a sinless life since God saved them.
I challenge anyone on this Forum to state that God caused them to commit those sin, whatever they were, after He saved them.
I challenge anyone on this forum to state that they truly believe that those who adhere to the Doctrines of Grace are "mindless robots", or determinists, or even plain old "robots"!
Last edited by a moderator:
What do you do about your failures to admit that Ephesians, is a letter to the Saints and believers at Ephesus?.
MB
You have once again captured the essence of the statement:wavey:and made it identifiable like a virus in a germ lab...on csi...calvinist scoffing identification:wavey::laugh::laugh:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a pretty hypocritical/two faced thing to sayas far as I’m concerned being Calvinist/Determinist/DoG/Whatever they call themselves are the ones always declaring that God caused/decreed/ordained/ PRE-DETERMINED all things including whether Christians or the “non-preselected elect” to be exactly what they are.
Simply by the plain sense of the reasoning which the Determinist continuously broadcast with the beat of their drums it would seem logically inescapable that at least some, “People, especially professing Christians, should not blame God for their failures, sins, and shortcomings!” to be a false statement according to their own doctrines.
Not only that but it seems logical according to Determinist Doctrines those same poor unlucky non-preselected elect people would have a pretty good darn excuse to not take responsible for their actions and to believe they could blame their Creator for pre-determining them that way.
You guys seriously need to make up your minds!
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Correct...
(or "your way" of thinking you've escaped the consequences to "your" doctrine
)Incorrect...
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status